High Hand suggestions/concerns (1 Viewer)

[Jambine]

There's a few good sites. Google "home game gambling laws"

 

[joseywales]

We play "must go to showdown", but I'm leaning against that.

Please provide Pros and Cons. I'm thinking the biggest con is that a HH contender might slow play after the river, to encourage a call, which could cost someone money. Now, we're all adults and it's not a car payment, so... Also, as I argue against this con, I'm thinking if a player has a HH strength hand, even if there was no HH contest, how much could he really bet without scaring a player off anyway??? So wouldn't the bet be similar to a "slow play" amount?

 

[WedgeRock]

If a player flops aces full or quads, even a light bet might get opponents out on the flop. A plyer holding a HHJ hand shouldn't be disqualified from collecting just because he can't get any callers... as long as he is willing to show.

Plus, how are you going to differentiate collusion from slow-play to get to showdown to qualify for the HHJ?

JMHO. YMMV.

 

[Mental Nomad]

Also, as I argue against this con, I'm thinking if a player has a HH strength hand, even if there was no HH contest, how much could he really bet without scaring a player off anyway??? So wouldn't the bet be similar to a "slow play" amount?

The fact that you've flopped a monster does not mean that you should slow-play. It means you can slow-play with no fear of being out-drawn, but it doesn't mean you should slow-play.

To decide whether you should, you need to figure out what's going to earn you the most money... and sometimes that means slow-play, and sometimes it doesn't. Many holdem players make the mistake of slow-playing much more often than they should.

If someone else has a big hand, it'll probably all get in on the river, anyway. And if everyone has crap, there's a good chance they all fold, no matter what street you bet. But there are often people who will call the flop and the turn to see what cards come; you don't want to give up all those bets. What's more, when those people do make a shitty pair by the river, they're not going to pay off much of a value bet, unless a pot has been built along the way.

You shouldn't always slow-play your monsters - just at the right times.

Also, just to hit both sides of this - the people who complain they have to slow-play their monsters because any small bet they make will fold everyone sometimes also complain that there's no point in bluffing, because nobody every folds or shows them any respect. One or the other!

If people are always folding to your flop bets, you should bluff more.

And if people never fold to your flop bets, you should damn well bet out when you flop a monster.

Now, back to the HHJP question - any rule that entices people to be more passive is probably a bad rule. Most amateurs are too passive; they have enough handicaps already without adding a rule that makes them more passive.

Plus, how are you going to differentiate collusion for slow-play to get to showdown to qualify for the HHJ?

This is also important - the "show-down" rule is much more likely to influence play, so if you have that rule, you're begging people to try to telegraph when they've got it. This could lead to some interesting bluffs, too - "you better call this!" - but overall, if the jackpot rule will affect proper play, I don't much like it.

 

[detroitdad]

I agree. Shouldn't have to go to show down to win. When the hand is over, roll your cards over, and collect the High Hand Jack Pot plaque

 

[bsdunbar1]

I agree. Shouldn't have to go to show down to win. When the hand is over, roll your cards over, and collect the High Hand Jack Pot plaque

When I was looking to start our HHJP for our cash games i did a lot of searching for rules and protocols. Most all casino's require a min pot size and the hand to go to showdown, i'm sure i read quite a few of the reasons why but i don't remember them, i just remember that was most common so we adopted it.

Casino's offering a set amount for a high hand, such as $100 for quads, these requirements didn't come into play and all you had to do was show the hand to win the set amount but for the "jackpots" they most commonly required a showdown.

 

[Mental Nomad]

When I was looking to start our HHJP for our cash games i did a lot of searching for rules and protocols. Most all casino's require a min pot size and the hand to go to showdown, i'm sure i read quite a few of the reasons why but i don't remember them, i just remember that was most common so we adopted it.

Casino's offering a set amount for a high hand, such as $100 for quads, these requirements didn't come into play and all you had to do was show the hand to win the set amount but for the "jackpots" they most commonly required a showdown.

Bad Beat jackpots must go to showdown, obviously - and sometimes the High Hand jackpot goes by the same rule just for consistency. People are easily confused, and before you know it, someone will complain that they didn't get paid because their hand did/didn't show down...

And sometimes the house rules are less about the game, and more about adjusting how often the jackpot gets paid, because they're looking for a certain average size - hitting big enough to be enticing, but often enough that people feel it can happen.

Minimum pot sizes for jackpots are typically the same minimum pot sizes for the jackpot rake to happen - if it's not raked for jackpot, it can't participate in the jackpot. This can lead to intentional collusion. If a short-handed, limped pot flops, it may not be big enough to rake. Check, check to river, and a high hand can bet out, and declare, "someone call this so this pot gets raked so that I can win the high hand." And that, of course, would technically violate the rules against talking about your hand.

 

[Blaster]

Home games I'm at always do must show holecards - but no showdown required, we have alternated at various times with if only 1 or both hole cards must play ......
I think I prefer both holecards must play ...

 

[bsdunbar1]

Home games I'm at always do must show holecards - but no showdown required, we have alternated at various times with if only 1 or both hole cards must play ......
I think I prefer both holecards must play ...

I definitely think BOTH hole cards must play, I am teetering on the showdown part, but for now i'll wait and see how long it takes someone to hit ours.

 

[Mental Nomad]

I definitely think BOTH hole cards must play, I am teetering on the showdown part, but for now i'll wait and see how long it takes someone to hit ours.

If holding one card is enough to trigger the jackpot, and you're allowing some level of Full House to win (I'll probably allow Jacks full, or better), then you run the possibility of two people qualifying at once with the same hand - the most like hand being Trips on the board with an ace, and two people have an ace in the hole.

Split jackpots may be fine with you, but I'd rather have the "rare" event hit big when it hits... and there's an inherent simplicity/purity to the idea of having a hand that nobody else can hold at the same time, as opposed to, say, a straight flush on the board, where everyone has the same hand.

 

[bsdunbar1]

Split jackpots may be fine with you, but I'd rather have the "rare" even hit big when it hits... and there's an inherent simplicity/purity to the idea of having a hand that nobody else can hold at the same time, as opposed to, say, a straight flush on the board, where everyone has the same hand.

^ Amen ^

 

[manamongkids]

all HH BBJ home games rules, AND local card rooms have both cards must play.

For my HH showdown not required, if you have AA and flop is AKK. you flip your cards over and you would have a qualifying hand

 

[BGinGA]

Whether to require one or two hole cards to qualify for a hold'em high hand jackpot is merely a matter of how often you want it to pay out --some may want a more frequent payout; others may prefer a larger but less common award.

But I'm pretty firm in my belief that a winning or qualifying hand should not require going to showdown. To do so can alter the way specific poker hands are played..... and that goes against the very nature and intent of the game itself.

 

[Blaster]

Whether to require one or two hole cards to qualify for a hold'em high hand jackpot is merely a matter of how often you want it to pay out --some may want a more frequent payout; others may prefer a larger but less common award.

Or, you still pay it out same frequency, (once per night for example), but you want the high hand button to possible fly back/forth across to more players over the course of the game ...

But I'm pretty firm in my belief that a winning or qualifying hand should not require going to showdown. To do so can alter the way specific poker hands are played..... and that goes against the very nature and intent of the game itself.

I very much agree. ^

 

[joseywales]

Whether to require one or two hole cards to qualify for a hold'em high hand jackpot is merely a matter of how often you want it to pay out --some may want a more frequent payout; others may prefer a larger but less common award.

But I'm pretty firm in my belief that a winning or qualifying hand should not require going to showdown. To do so can alter the way specific poker hands are played..... and that goes against the very nature and intent of the game itself.

This is exactly where I think I come off. Although we usually have the same players, for now, I'd like to pay out every week, so one card is fine. We only pay 100% if it quads or higher, so that leaves the possibly for some carryover and a juicer pot the following week. I agree on the showdown as well. Should be a hoot laying that law down, but to me it just makes sense.

 

[detroitdad]

When I was looking to start our HHJP for our cash games i did a lot of searching for rules and protocols. Most all casino's require a min pot size and the hand to go to showdown, i'm sure i read quite a few of the reasons why but i don't remember them, i just remember that was most common so we adopted it.

Casino's offering a set amount for a high hand, such as $100 for quads, these requirements didn't come into play and all you had to do was show the hand to win the set amount but for the "jackpots" they most commonly required a showdown.

Were not a casino. Were a home game. My rules. You can use one or both of your hole cards. It does not have to go to show down, but you must flip over your cards. It pays out at the end of every night.

 

[Mental Nomad]

Whether to require one or two hole cards to qualify for a hold'em high hand jackpot is merely a matter of how often you want it to pay out --some may want a more frequent payout; others may prefer a larger but less common award.

Or you can lower the qualifying hand. That's why I think I'll go with Jack Full or better.

Or, you still pay it out same frequency, (once per night for example), but you want the high hand button to possible fly back/forth across to more players over the course of the game ...

Interesting twist on the thinking! Yeah, if that's what you enjoy, you make rules that lead to that happening.

I don't think there's a right way; there are just a variety of liked ways.

 

[mashoo]

I run my high hand jackpot as a part of my potluck game. My fiancee and I provide food for our games but every couple months I organize a potluck game so my fiancee doesn't have to cook. I let everyone know up front that if they'd like to participate in the high hand of the night, I take $5.

I take the number of committed players and I buy a gift card as the prize. So far players are happy with a gift card to a liquor store! The amount is usually $35 to $40.

As for the high hand goes, there is no qualifier and I have a token to give to the current high hand holder. I simply keep track of the current highest hand in a small notebook. In the game, high hand doesn't need showdown and players need at least one card in your hand play. If you play the board, it doesn't count. One game I've had it at 6666T and then later in the night had 6666Q. There was plenty of trash talking from the first player with quad 6's lol. Last potluck game there was a 10 high straight flush the 3rd hand in and there was plenty of groaning from everyone haha.

 

[Mental Nomad]

Very cool that you have a regular thing going!

I have a regular game where I want to add a high-hand jackpot, but it's a cash game and is very open. I have some regulars that come early and never stay late. I have some people that only show up once a month or two. I don't want to be hanging on to money for weeks to get it to them, nor requiring that people stay to the end of the night.

I'd rather pay them out immediately when they hit, and just let the pot grow - I'll be raking the pot to feed the jackpot.

It will be funny if we get two straight flushes in one night... which has actually happened, once. The second straight flush would earn peanuts compared to the first.

One question not addressed in the thread: does the jackpot payout stay off the table in a home game? I'll guess that's a yes. If the pot has gotten large, you don't want it suddenly making someone the super-ultra-big-stack. So I'm thinking the pot pays out as cash to the person who hits.

 

[Blaster]

One question not addressed in the thread: does the jackpot payout stay off the table in a home game? I'll guess that's a yes. If the pot has gotten large, you don't want it suddenly making someone the super-ultra-big-stack. So I'm thinking the pot pays out as cash to the person who hits.

I just collect a fixed amount at the start of the game ($5 per, tournament), which many also do similar when having a cash game.
The prize $$ goes into an envelope off table to give to winner of HH at end..
If you rake for the HH, you could also pull it off table as a seperate prize..

 

[detroitdad]

I just collect a fixed amount at the start of the game ($5 per, tournament), which many also do similar when having a cash game.
The prize $$ goes into an envelope off table to give to winner of HH at end..
If you rake for the HH, you could also pull it off table as a seperate prize..

Yep. I'd he isn't there and his high hand holdd up ill give it to him next time he plays

 

[Mental Nomad]

Some of my players go months between games! I don't want to get into that business. Not my cup of tea.

 

[SixSpeedFury]

If they want to rabbit chase charge them a BB to add to the high hand. That's what I do.

 

[Mental Nomad]

OK, we started a High Hand Jackpot at my two-bit game, last night (25c big blind). A few had reservations about the 25c rake to fund the jackpot, but a minute of thinking about how much that take from them per night put them at ease. Since everyone was on board, I pulled out a little crockery ramekin as our "pot" and we drew for first deal.

I kicked in $10 to seed the jackpot, and another player tossed in $1. So we started at $11.

I think we managed to rake most hands, but we may have missed a handful. The rules, at this point:

Rake: 25c raked from any hand that flops
Qualifier: Jacks full or better, both cards in hand must play
Showing: hand does not need to go to showdown; if the pot is won uncontested, a Qualifier can show their hand to claim a jackpot payout
Payout Shares: Full house gets 1/4 jackpot, Quads get 1/2 jackpot, Straight Flush gets full jackpot.
Payout: Payouts of $5 or less get paid into the player's stack. If the payout is over $5, then the bulk of the payout (rounded down to the nearest $5) is paid "off the table" and the remainder (from rounding) is paid into their stack. While the main payout is off-table, the winner has the option of adding on to their stack within normal top-up limits.

We had two full houses qualify, each getting paid just under $5, all on the table. Amusingly, the biggest pot of the night also got a jackpot payout... Kings Full pulled in about $170 from a three-way all-in... and then got an extra $5 for hitting the jackpot, which amused everyone!

The night ended with almost $24 in the jackpot which rolls to next game. Overall, we felt it was a success and will keep it going.

We don't yet have a feel for what kind of level to jackpot will tend to reach - for now, it's at 96 units ($24 = 96 quarters raked) and appears to be growing faster than Full Houses draw it down.

Afterthought: it looks like we're getting in only 16 or 17 hands per hour. Last night featured a slower-than-usual game on account of discussions, distractions, misdeals, and some drunken ladies, but I'm pretty shocked that it's that low. I would have guess that we got it much more than that.

------------------------------------

I have two questions where I'm looking for input.

1. The question came up of undealt cards when a hand is won uncontested. In other words, if a player flops a set, bets, and wins the pot, should the turn and river be dealt to see if their hand can improve to quads for a jackpot? We made the ruling that no - the hand ends when the pot is won; it either qualifies for the jackpot at the point, or it doesn't. I'm not seeing good rational arguments for handling this differently.

2. We'd like to include this jackpot in my 25c/50c game, which has a few players that overlap the two groups (apart from myself.) Logically, it seems to me that it's fair if both groups are contributing a 25c rake per flop, and both groups use identical payout rules. I welcome any feedback on this point.

Extra info about the games - the Two Bit (25c bb) game tends to have more players (typically 7 to 11), many of whom rotate and/or won't show up for weeks at a time.

The 25c/50c game typically gets fewer players (5 or 6), but has a very consistent core group of 5 players who are almost always there. Three of the five are regs at both games (I'm counted in the three.)

I don't think any of that actually matters, though; short-handed versus full table doesn't change the typical cards dealt per player, and any time the game is straight holdem with the same payout rules and rake, it seems to me the jackpot can be fairly carried across games.

There's some argument that differences in the play of the hands may make a difference in payout frequency... for example, if the short-handed game reaches showdown less often, then fewer cards are dealt and therefore fewer jackpots are realized.

Any strong thoughts regarding the fairness of carrying the pot across games?

 

[BGinGA]

I have two questions where I'm looking for input.

1. The question came up of undealt cards when a hand is won uncontested. In other words, if a player flops a set, bets, and wins the pot, should the turn and river be dealt to see if their hand can improve to quads for a jackpot? We made the ruling that no - the hand ends when the pot is won; it either qualifies for the jackpot at the point, or it doesn't. I'm not seeing good rational arguments for handling this differently.

2. We'd like to include this jackpot in my 25c/50c game, which has a few players that overlap the two groups (apart from myself.) Logically, it seems to me that it's fair if both groups are contributing a 25c rake per flop, and both groups use identical payout rules. I welcome any feedback on this point.

Any strong thoughts regarding the fairness of carrying the pot across games?

1. The hand is over when the pot is awarded, imo. Only way I'd allow additional board cards to be dealt is if some sort of rabbit-hunting penalty is also in play and enforced (see discussions elsewhere for appropriate penalties and costs). If you do allow it, would you also allow the hand(s) that folded on the flop to also improve? Or is only the winning hand eligible to improve with the extra cards?

2. I don't see a problem with the jackpot carrying over, in your specific circumstances. Adds an extra 'unknown' flavor ("How much is it today?"). Same rake makes sense. I'd expect the short table to be at a mathematical disadvantage, since fewer hands will be competing. Bigger table = more hands dealt = better chances of somebody hitting a qualifying hand........ on every deal.

I didn't do the math, but it makes sense to me that 150 total 2-card hands per hour 10-handed (at a rate of 15 hands dealt per hour) will hit more often than 150 total 2-card hands per hour if 5-handed (at a rate of 30 hands dealt per hour). More 2-card hands in play simultaneously should hit more often, since the average strength of the hands seeing the flop will be higher.

 

[Mental Nomad]

Thanks for the confirming thoughts. I'd like to hear viewpoints opposed, too.

Only way I'd allow additional board cards to be dealt is if some sort of rabbit-hunting penalty is also in play and enforced (see discussions elsewhere for appropriate penalties and costs). If you do allow it, would you also allow the hand(s) that folded on the flop to also improve? Or is only the winning hand eligible to improve with the extra cards?

Sounds like a rabbit hole I don't want to go down! Next thing you know, someone with four cards to a straight flush is asking for the jackpot to be counted down so they can figure out if they have odds to pay for draws....

But I do like the idea that, if you have a rabbit-hunting penalty, it goes into the jackpot...

I didn't do the math, but it makes sense to me that 150 total 2-card hands per hour 10-handed (at a rate of 15 hands dealt per hour) will hit more often than 150 total 2-card hands per hour if 5-handed (at a rate of 30 hands dealt per hour). More 2-card hands in play simultaneously should hit more often, since the average strength of the hands seeing the flop will be higher.

I'm finding that to be a really interesting speculation.

So we're thinking a 10-handed game at 15 hands per hour deals 150 individual hands...
And a 5-handed game moving twice as fast at 30 hands per hour deals 150 individual hands.

The 10-handed table might average 5 people to the flop... that's 5 x 15 = 75 hands flopped, but stronger hands....
The 5-handed table might average 3 to the flop... that's 3 x 30 = 90 hands flopped, but includes some weaker hands.

Stuff like J6 can flop trip sixes, and become quads with the jack playing... a hand less likely to be played at a full table. The full table has stronger hands flopping, but the short table has all of those, and then some... which could be extra qualifiers.

I wonder which way the balance goes.

Two confounding factors:

First, I don't think the 5-handed game actually plays twice as fast. Betting goes round quicker on the deal, to be sure, but there's less difference at the flop, and almost no difference later... Thought I suppose the 5-handed game will end hands uncontested a little more often. Still, I don't think it can totally double. I don't know.

I feel like people tank more often 5-handed... perhaps because they know their opponent may have a more inferior holding than usual, and is more likely to be bluffing, etc. Very subjective perception of mine, though.

Second, and this is the bigger factor... on either table, the hands that are likely qualifiers are likely going to stay in for a flop.

Likely qualifiers: pocket pair, suited connector, Ax.
The most likely qualifiers - because of the full houses - are JJ, QQ, KK, AA. These will pretty much always see a flop in either game.

So most of the really likely qualifiers will be included in those hands that do flop.

To the degree that some are weeded out by raises - stuff like 22 or 54s - they will tended be weeded out at the full table. (22 in early position may not limp, for example.)

Really interesting.

 

[Mental Nomad]

Update - our the High Hand Jackpot is still going strong.

We're still running the payout rules established two posts prior.

The first couple of weeks, we debated adjusting the payout structure; the pot was getting quartered at least once or twice per night, and halved every other game or so. Size fluctuated between $15 and $25 in the pot for some time. I decided to adjust the payouts, but not until someone hit a Straight Flush to clean it out. It seemed fair to continue the existing rule until we had a clean slate. I planned to increase the minimum Full House to Aces Full. But that never happened, because we still haven't hit a straight flush.

Also, we stopped hitting so many full houses for several weeks, and the pot grew to over $50. People were getting excited. We didn't hit m0any qualifying quads, but the occasional full house was quartering it.

As of late, we had a cold streak of several weeks across the two games where this plays. We have a weekly 25c/50c game (5 or 6-handed), and an every-other-week 12.5c/25c game (8 to 10-handed.)

The last hit was a full house for $20 when the pot was $80, taking it to $60.

Since then, the pot has only grown. Last game (Friday), it grew to $140. Someone (belatedly) realized they could have claimed the Jackpot with Kings Full when the pot was about $125 or $130, but they didn't realize it until a couple of orbits later, when it was too late to show and claim. I believe the person, and they made no attempt to claim their quarter.

So now I'm thinking that the payouts are structure just fine, and the opening weeks of our jackpot were just a hot streak. I do recall that the month before we started the jackpot, we saw two straight flushes in one night, both of which would have been qualifiers... but we've seen none since then.

Interesting.

Also, on a pleasant note: you can't fit a lot of chips in a ramekin on a table. I finally have an opportunity to put a black hundo in action at these 25c games!

 

[Mental Nomad]

Discussion note:

We occasionally have debate at the table about how to handle it in the extremely unlikely circumstance of two qualifying High Hands hitting in the same hand. Am interest in feedback from you guys.

Pay winning high hand only? After all, the loser is NOT the "High Hand."
Or pay both qualifying high hands?
If paying both, how to split? Say it's Quads over Full house...
Pay half the jackpot to the Quads and a quarter to the House simultaneously, leaving 25% in the pot?
Or pay half to the Quads, and then a quarter of the remainder to the House, leaving 37.5% in the pot?
Or say it's house over house:
Pay 25% to each, equally? Leaving 50% in the pot?
Or pay 25% to one, and 25% of the remainder to the second highest? Leaving 56.25% in the pot?
Other ideas entirely?


Note, this is all in context of a single table. I don't currently run two tables, but that might happen in the future, which kicks off another series of questions...

 

[BGinGA]

I'd say you should have it structured (and advertised) to pay the winning qualifying high hand, not just "any old" high hand. For a single table, that's only one payout, so an understandable and easily enforceable rule.

For two tables, you ~could~ have two payouts on simultaneously qualifying hands, each paying out the previously stated percentages of the pot size. But there are problems when two straight flushes hit on the same hand on different tables, or when a straight flush and any other qualifying hand appear simultaneously on different tables -- because the payouts exceed 100% of the pot. Only real choice you'd have there is to pay both straight flushes 50% (same as 2x quads), unless the house wants to pony up and pay both 100%. Even the percentage payouts to a simultaneous full house and straight flush on different tables would exceed the amount in the pot.

Only way around all of that mess is to pay only the highest winning hand, even if two qualifying hands appear simultaneously on separate tables. That's gonna really piss off a player with a winning (but smaller) qualifying hand, especially if it's a smaller straight flush.

Bottom line in my view? Don't run a high-hand jackpot -- especially with percentage payouts -- with more than one table in play. Problems would be rare, but pretty explosive when they did happen. I guess one way to appease it would be to run a simultaneous bad-beat jackpot, so both hands would get paid.

 

[Mental Nomad]

I've been running with the rules edited to say "a winning hand that qualifies..." I think that sums it up nicely. Thanks, @BGinGA .

And, since it's now custom to have our little jackpot pot on the table, the jackpot only gets played and paid on the table where it's sitting (not that I've had two tables in action at my place, anyway.)

After multiple weeks with no hits - not even a full house - the pot grew to $185. Last night, it got hit three times: quads, house, quads, and it ended the night at $45.

Still no qualifying straight flushes. I think the odds/payout structure are working out just fine for a rolling jackpot in our games. We're sticking with it.